get_api_gateway_config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It only restates the get operation and the zone scope; there is no mention of response format, required permissions, or any side effects. For a read-only tool this is low-risk, but the description offers no behavioral detail beyond what the name and schema already imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It stays appropriately short for a simple one-parameter tool, though it sacrifices substance rather than elaborating on the configuration being retrieved.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The operational surface is small: one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. However, with no annotations and several similarly named sibling tools, the description does not tell an agent what the 'API Gateway configuration' actually contains or how it differs from alternatives, leaving a meaningful gap in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, zone_id, is already fully described in the schema as 'The zone ID', so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning about the zone_id format or its relationship to the configuration, but the structured schema carries the burden; baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('API Gateway configuration') scoped to a zone, so an agent can infer the operation is a read. However, it does not distinguish this from similarly named siblings like get_api_gateway_settings or get_gateway_configuration, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains several closely related tools, including get_api_gateway_settings and get_api_gateway_discovery, but the description does not explain what makes this one the right choice or when to avoid it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.